Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 28 April 2010 - 08:50 AM Please tell me which journals will publish my manuscript? 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #22 swansont swansont Shaken, not stirred Moderators 29,430 posts Location Washington DC region Posted 30 April 2010 - 04:07 PM None of the reputable ones. You might try Galilean Electrodynamics. 0 Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^ I am not a minimum-wage government shill. Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown. My SFN blog: Swans on Tea Back to top #23 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 5 November 2010 - 02:52 AM None of the reputable ones. You might try Galilean Electrodynamics. After view the discussion on SFN, the editor of Galilean Electrodynamics (GED) think my work is good one, and accept my submission. I think GED provide us an opportunity to share our work, and respect the editors. Edited by Jeremy0922, 5 November 2010 - 05:40 AM. 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #24 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 11 March 2011 - 04:22 AM GED will publish my paper Electromagnetic Radiation and stability of the Hydrogen Atom in2012, the preprint of my paper is linked for read. If you are going to propagate this information to any third party, Please contact with GED . Edited by Jeremy0922, 11 March 2011 - 04:24 AM. 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #25 xiaojun xiaojun Meson Senior Members 51 posts Posted 22 July 2014 - 08:52 PM According to my understanding, in a hydrogen atom, electromagnetic radiation is independent of the electro motion state, and the energy levels of the hydrogen atom on. 0 Back to top #26 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 23 July 2014 - 02:16 AM According to my understanding, in a hydrogen atom, electromagnetic radiation is independent of the electro motion state, and the energy levels of the hydrogen atom on. At the ground state, whether the electron produces radiation? Edited by Jeremy0922, 23 July 2014 - 02:16 AM. 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #27 xiaojun xiaojun Meson Senior Members 51 posts Posted 23 July 2014 - 03:19 AM At the ground state, whether the electron produces radiation? Electron acceleration with a radiation, it and the electron in hydrogen atom jumps between radiation produced differentiated 0 Back to top #28 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 23 July 2014 - 03:37 AM Electron acceleration with a radiation, it and the electron in hydrogen atom jumps between radiation produced differentiated How do we understand the ground state of the H atom is steady? 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #29 Sensei Sensei Primate Senior Members 1,594 posts Posted 23 July 2014 - 03:47 AM At the ground state, whether the electron produces radiation? It would violate conservation of energy, if electron would forever emit photons. It would means that electron has infinite amount of energy (which is obviously not true). 0 How To Calculate Decay Energy Of Radioactive Isotope Chemistry Lab Guru application (turn Full HD mode). Back to top #30 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 23 July 2014 - 04:09 AM It would violate conservation of energy, if electron would forever emit photons. It would means that electron has infinite amount of energy (which is obviously not true). Yes, this problem has not be solved by present theories, so we must consider the interactions among radiations and charged particles in H atom for proving there is a steady state. 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #31 Sensei Sensei Primate Senior Members 1,594 posts Posted 23 July 2014 - 04:58 AM Yes, this problem has not be solved by present theories, so we must consider the interactions among radiations and charged particles in H atom for proving there is a steady state. You turned mine answer upside down... 0 How To Calculate Decay Energy Of Radioactive Isotope Chemistry Lab Guru application (turn Full HD mode). Back to top #32 xiaojun xiaojun Meson Senior Members 51 posts Posted 23 July 2014 - 05:12 AM It would violate conservation of energy, if electron would forever emit photons. It would means that electron has infinite amount of energy (which is obviously not true). Electronic energy released no larger than the electron carries energy Yes, this problem has not be solved by present theories, so we must consider the interactions among radiations and charged particles in H atom for proving there is a steady state. I don't know what you write, but according to some words to express my personal opinion, it may also produce some misunderstanding解 0 Back to top #33 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 23 July 2014 - 07:14 AM I don't know what you write, but according to some words to express my personal opinion, it may also produce some misunderstanding解 OK, you could uderstand my opnion from my paper and posts 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #34 Strange Strange Scientist Senior Members 4,679 posts Location 他国 Posted 23 July 2014 - 07:42 AM Yes, this problem has not be solved by present theories. Not true. This is yet another bit of evidence for the quantum model that you are simply dismissing because it contradicts your personal belief. 0 Back to top #35 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 23 July 2014 - 08:04 AM Not true. This is yet another bit of evidence for the quantum model that you are simply dismissing because it contradicts your personal belief. Please tell me how to explain there is a ground state of H atom by QM. 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #36 Strange Strange Scientist Senior Members 4,679 posts Location 他国 Posted 23 July 2014 - 08:30 AM Please tell me how to explain there is a ground state of H atom by QM. You mean you don't understand the theory that you claim is wrong? How can you say it is wrong, if you don't understand it? 0 Back to top #37 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 23 July 2014 - 09:05 AM You mean you don't understand the theory that you claim is wrong? How can you say it is wrong, if you don't understand it? Don't misunderstand my question, Please explain the ground state of H atom by QM. 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #38 Strange Strange Scientist Senior Members 4,679 posts Location 他国 Posted 23 July 2014 - 09:16 AM Don't misunderstand my question, Please explain the ground state of H atom by QM. Maybe you should post a question in the physics section of the forum if you are interested in learning something about physics. Edited by Strange, 23 July 2014 - 09:16 AM. 0 Back to top #39 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 23 July 2014 - 09:28 AM Maybe you should post a question in the physics section of the forum if you are interested in learning something about physics. That means you can not explain! 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #40 Strange Strange Scientist Senior Members 4,679 posts Location 他国 Posted 23 July 2014 - 09:44 AM That means you can not explain! It certainly means I cannot explain. But I am quite sure there are people here who can. Which is why I suggest you ask in the appropriate section of the forum (in the unlikely event that you are interested in learning).
如果能打开，将访问原始链接： http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/44948-electromagnetic-radiation-and-steady-state-of-hydrogen-atom/page-7 Electromagnetic radiation and steady state of hydrogen atom Started by Jeremy0922 , Jan 27, 2010 Posted 27 January 2010 - 10:26 AM Recently, I have finished a manuscript Electromagnetic radiation and steady state of hydrogen atom(see attachment file), which is about the electromanetic phenomena of two moving charged particles in hydrogen atom by means of classical electromagnetics. The present understanding about electromagnetic radiation of moving charged particle according to classical electrodynamics is incorrect, and lead the solution of radiation reaction from it run away and conflict with causality. The stability of hydrogen atom should be recognized in terms of classical electromagnetic theory. Electromagnetic radiation is produced by acceleration of the moving charged particle, but the acceleration of it is not enough to describe the radiation of moving charged particle. In hydrogen atom, the magnetic interaction of two moving charged particles is determined by vector product of the two velocities of them, and the rate of the change of the magnetic forces on two charged particles are same in magnitude and in opposite direction of their motion. According to the classical electromagnetic theory, the induced electric field is proportional to the rate of change of magnetic field. Then, it is not difficult to get that the radiation reaction on a charged particle could be described by the rate of change of magnetic force. Therefore, the radiation of charged particle is related the rate of vector product of velocities of the two moving charged particles in hydrogen atom, and the intensities of the induced electric fields of the two charged particles are same in magnitude. A new conception – pinch effect of induced field was induced to describe the interaction of induced electric field and induced magnetic field by the conception “pinch effect of plasma”. By this new conception, the propagation and the distribution of radiation will be flexed and concentrated in a narrow space with the increase of the frequency of orbit for moving charged particles in hydrogen atom. Based on the new understanding above, the present manuscript the spontaneous radiation of the two charged particles system was analyzed, and proved that the hydrogen atom has a natural steady electromagnetic structure which is called ground state of hydrogen atom. Finally, the resonant equation of ground circular orbit had been investigated by mean of standing wave equation. Meanwhile, Schrdinger equation and Planck quantum had been deduced from the resonant equation logically and causally. Thereby, I believe Schrdinger equation could be explained as the standing wave expression of modal response of ground orbit of hydrogen atom. Attached Files 091117.pdf 96.38KB 471 downloads Edited by Jeremy0922, 27 January 2010 - 12:51 PM. typing error Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 2 March 2010 - 07:53 AM According to classical electrodynamic theory, for a non-relativistic moving charged particle, the electromagnetic radiation is only related to its acceleration vector, then a direct deduction could be obtained as follow: The radiation reaction should be only related to the acceleration vector of the charged particle. Because the motion of the charged particle might be arbitrary, and then the angle of the velocity and the acceleration should be discretional degree. That is the angle of the radiation reaction and the velocity could be a sharp angle, or be an obtuse angle. Bause the power of radiation reaction equals to the scalar product of the velocity and radiation reaction, thereby, the work of radiation reaction could be positive value, or be negative value. Clearly, this result is unsatisfied to the law of energy conservation. The question: electromagnetic radiation by moving charged particle is really determined by acceleration, or not? swansont Shaken, not stirred Moderators 29,430 posts Location Washington DC region Posted 2 March 2010 - 12:01 PM What's the angular momentum of the system in the ground state in your model? 0 Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^ I am not a minimum-wage government shill. Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown. My SFN blog: Swans on Tea Back to top #4 Bob_for_short Bob_for_short Atom Senior Members 344 posts Location Grenoble, FRANCE Posted 2 March 2010 - 04:07 PM Jeremy0922 said The question: electromagnetic radiation by moving charged particle is really determined by acceleration, or not? Yes, it is, at least in CED. As you porobably know, the radiation is a part of the total electromagnetic field created by a charge. This part is relatively small at short distances (1/R 1/R^2, R 1) but becomes the only carrying away the field energy-momentum at remote distances (1/R 1/R^2, R 1). Concerning the radiative friction term in the particle equation, the only reasonable expression in CED is that of jerk in the perturbation theory. Your reasoning about acceletarion is wrong. An additional acceleration term in the particle equation changes the particle mass. With a heavier mass the actual particle acceleration becomes smaller. But this approach fails: it does not fit experiments. See http://arxiv.org/abs/0811.4416 . Edited by Bob_for_short, 2 March 2010 - 04:53 PM. 0 Vladimir Kalitvianski Back to top #5 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 2 March 2010 - 04:18 PM The sum of the angular momentums of two particles referred to their center of mass, because the two particles are moving along their circular orbits around the center of mass on the same plane with the same frequency. 0 Back to top #6 swansont swansont Shaken, not stirred Moderators 29,430 posts Location Washington DC region Posted 2 March 2010 - 04:46 PM Jeremy0922 said The sum of the angular momentums of two particles referred to their center of mass, because the two particles are moving along their circular orbits around the center of mass on the same plane with the same frequency. That would be a problem, since the angular momentum of the Hydrogen ground state is zero. If you re going to present something that looks like the Bohr model, you need to address the deficiencies of the Bohr model. 0 Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^ I am not a minimum-wage government shill. Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown. My SFN blog: Swans on Tea Back to top #7 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 3 March 2010 - 08:46 AM Swansont, Thank you very much! The model of hydrogen atom in my manuscript is similar to Bohr's, but not same. 1. By means of classical electromagnetics, it has been proved that there is a natural steady state that is ground state for hydrogen atom. 2. Linear spectrum from hydrogen atom could be explained as effect produced by resonant vibration (modal response) of the ground orbit. 3. Factually, there are several mathematical tools could be selected to treat the electron orbit and resonance of ground state of hydrogen atom. The circular orbit of electron for ground state could be treated with standing wave equation, and the orbit parameters and other physical quantities of groud state and resonant state could be gotten by solution of the Standing wave equation. So, standing wave equation does not describe the real motion of the electron in hydrogen atom . 4.Schrodinger equation of steady state of hydrogen atom was deduced from the standing wave equation of ground circular orbit of electron by mathematical treatment. The mathematical condition required is that the ground circular orbit of electron is selected as reference to describe other resonant orbits, and then the parameters and physical quantities of resonant orbits could be described with that of ground orbit and integral number. Meanwhile, the relation E=hv (Planck quantum) was deduced. By my point, the quantum number from Schrodinger equation of hydrogen atom such as n, l, is related to orbital shape comparing to ground circular orbit. Is the interpretation right? 0 Back to top #8 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 3 March 2010 - 08:56 AM My question is for non-relativistic motion of charged particle. 0 Back to top #9 swansont swansont Shaken, not stirred Moderators 29,430 posts Location Washington DC region Posted 3 March 2010 - 09:45 AM The Schrdinger equation predicts a circularly symmetric probability of finding the electron, but does not predict a circular orbit. And it correctly predicts angular momentum of zero. Any model that has a classical orbit is going to be wrong, because it will contradict this. 0 Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^ I am not a minimum-wage government shill. Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown. My SFN blog: Swans on Tea Back to top #10 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 3 March 2010 - 10:13 AM Of course you are right, if Copenhagen interpretation satisfies to science principle, that is logic and causality. The aim of the manuscript is to provide an other inpterpretation about the consequences from Schrodinger equation based on classical theory and conception which the great M.Planck hoped Edited by Jeremy0922, 3 March 2010 - 10:18 AM. modification 0 Back to top #11 swansont swansont Shaken, not stirred Moderators 29,430 posts Location Washington DC region Posted 3 March 2010 - 10:34 AM The interpretation is rejected if it predicts things not borne out by experiment . 0 Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^ I am not a minimum-wage government shill. Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown. My SFN blog: Swans on Tea Back to top #12 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 4 March 2010 - 03:04 AM OK, that is true. Hydrogen atom is a two-particle system, including a nucleus (proton) and an electron. If we accept pure probability interpretation about wave function, and the two particles obey it. There probably is not a steady center of the atom, and it is impossible to get a center field model to describe the motion of the electron of hygrogen atom. I think that is a serious problem for pure probability interpretation, and make me try to find a new idea. 0 Back to top #13 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 12 March 2010 - 07:48 AM If the motions of the electron and proton are controlled by probablity wave, is there a steady hydrogen atom. So, I trust M. Planck is right. Edited by Jeremy0922, 12 March 2010 - 07:57 AM. adding point 0 Back to top #14 swansont swansont Shaken, not stirred Moderators 29,430 posts Location Washington DC region Posted 12 March 2010 - 10:27 AM Described by a probability wave. Not controlled by it. 0 Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^ I am not a minimum-wage government shill. Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown. My SFN blog: Swans on Tea Back to top #15 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 12 March 2010 - 04:21 PM Sorry，the motion of the electron is controlled by the center field caused by the proton according to current model of hydrogen atom. But this field is not steady if we accept probability wave to describe the motion of the proton. So, it is difficult to get steady model of hydrogen atom from probability wave interpretation, isn't it? Edited by Jeremy0922, 12 March 2010 - 04:47 PM. modify 0 Back to top #16 swansont swansont Shaken, not stirred Moderators 29,430 posts Location Washington DC region Posted 12 March 2010 - 04:46 PM Depends on what you mean by steady. The energy and angular momentum are quantized. The location of the electron is not. But then, that's neither surprising nor an issue that's solved by a classical approach. We know that the electron will exhibit wave behavior from independent experiments of diffraction and interference. The Bohr orbit for n=1 has an angular momentum of hbar, so the deBroglie wavelength of the electron is of order the Bohr radius. You can't localize the electron with a classical solution, either. A solution that gets the angular momentum wrong is wrong. Period. No further discussion necessary. 0 Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^ I am not a minimum-wage government shill. Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown. My SFN blog: Swans on Tea Back to top #17 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 13 March 2010 - 08:19 AM I agree and respect your decision. But I want to give my idea about the questions above. The frame selected fo describe hydrogen atom should be steady to lab frame. Any science theory is never self-contradictory. The main success of quantum mechanics owes to the outstanding consequences from Schrdinger equation about some structure properties of atom and molecule. Schrdinger equation expresses the relations between some physical quantitiies while the structure is changing, that is Schrdinger equation is a condition equation about structure change. If resonance is able to change the structure of atom and molecule, then standing wave function from resonance should be equivalent to Schrdinger equation. To solve the standing wave, some physical quantities such as the frequencies of natural vibration and high term vibration will be obtained, while unmeaning results will be obtained too. The reservation of mathematical results is determined by physical phenomena. 0 Back to top #18 swansont swansont Shaken, not stirred Moderators 29,430 posts Location Washington DC region Posted 13 March 2010 - 10:30 AM Jeremy0922 said The frame selected fo describe hydrogen atom should be steady to lab frame. What do you mean by this? How does QM fail to do it? 0 Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^ I am not a minimum-wage government shill. Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown. My SFN blog: Swans on Tea Back to top #19 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 14 March 2010 - 03:05 AM The model of hydrogen atom that the electron moves in the center field produced by proton is the inevitable result by pure classical theory, and the reduced mass of electron must be introduced to correct the result. With QM, we accept and select this model of hydrogen atom which is belong to pure classic conception, to build Schrdinger equation of it, and then deny the classical motion of the electron. I think that is self-contradictory. Since we have the perfect description of QM about the motion of particle, the model of hydrogen atom could be build with it. Why don't we build the model of hydrogen atom independently by QM? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Edited by Jeremy0922, 14 March 2010 - 05:15 AM. modification 0 Back to top #20 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 9 April 2010 - 09:11 AM Continuous thread Why don't we build the model of hydrogen atom independently by QM? http://www.sciencefo...ead.php?t=49857
《热•统》教材中第五章为“不可逆过程热力学简介”。由于专业要求，对这部分不作教学要求。在本次讲授中，顺势就偷了个懒。本博文就离开教材内容讲点别的。很是偶然， 2014 年前后，在“热•统”研究领域发生的两件“围剿”事件， … 。 一，科学家界的一个自组织现象：清理门户 人生艰难，都要混口饭，只要不太过分，谁会拆穿谁啊 ? 这叫人艰不拆。 这种情况在科学界也有。 如果某个科学家及其课题组，偶尔一两篇没有营养甚至误导的文章，只要不是太严重，不会有人理会。科学界很大，容得下一两个另类。再说，人生自古谁无过 ? 科学界相信科学家能不断自我审视，自我扬弃。 但是，如果有关科学家长期不能进行自清，继续高强度继续发表这类的文章，又希望在国际科学俱乐部中露脸，科学界就会露出狰狞面目。科学界会出现一个自组织现象：清理门户。 在“热•统”领域，就有这样争论。一个发生在热力学领域，另外一个发生在统计物理领域。而对这两个理论的清理门户，都发生在 2014 年前后。 二，对热力学中一个新理论的“围剿” 热力学领域中有一个“ G 场理论” ( 代指，请勿对号入座，请勿人肉 ) ，由国内某位教授缔造。 2007 年前发表的一篇文章已有 369 次引用，不过这些引用 95% 来自国内。如果划一个“ G 场理论”流传的相图， 2014 年是“ G 场理论”发生“相变”的时间边界，这一年“ G 场理论”受到国外热力学界的“围剿”。这些攻击除了在权威刊物上的交锋外，还有一些言论，不宜在刊物上发表，就通过国际会议上的讨论、通过电子邮件在行当内的流传。有一位来自美国机械工程师学会 ( American Society of Mechanical Engineers ) 荣誉会士 ( Honorary Member ) A B 教授，显得义愤填膺。除了公开的发表批判文章、在主持的国际会议的讲话以外，他还以电子邮件的方式，传递他的愤懑。 ———— ...... There are two extremely negative aspects: 1. The false claim that G 场 is a physical quantity and a useful concept in thermodynamics. Below my signature, I reviewed for you the field that is now growing and showing that G 场 is a falsehood, a trick. 2. The activity of G 场的缔造人, which is a factory of plagiarism and an insult to science, to Chinese science, and the CAS . The plagiarism is being disguised not only as G 场 but also as G 场理论-- …. ...... AB， 某席位 教授， USA 某大学 ************************************ Review : G 场 is now an open scandal in thermal sciences. It is a Chinese scandal . No less than seven independent studies in a single year (1-7) revealed that the concept of G 场 is false: it is a trick to simply duplicate ideas and results that were obtained previously based on known methods such as entropy generation minimization, exergy destruction minimization, and .... For example, Professors XX1 and XX2 concluded on page 359 of their work that G 场 papers are “ripoffs ... ”. Professors YY1 and YY2 concluded on page 525 of their work that “... the results obtained by the G 场 are identical to ... ” References: (1) 意大利三位教授， ... ， J. Non-Equilib. Thermodyn.. ， 2013 ， … 。 (2) 德国某教授， ... ， J. Heat Transfer. ， 2014 ， … 。 (3) 美国某教授， ... ，国外某英文刊物， 2014 ， … 。 (4) 埃及某教授， ... ，国外某英文刊物， 2014 ， … 。 (5) 邻国两位教授， … ， Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2014 ， ... 。 (6) 巴西两位教授， … ，国外某英文刊物， 2014 ， ... 。 (7) 某三位教授， … ，国外某英文刊物， 2015 ， .... 。 ———— 对中国科学家提出的一个理论发生如此负面、集中的批评，似乎还是第一次 。相信 20 年后，等到一切都有清晰结论的时候，会有人直面这一场科学争论。 三，要谨慎对待 Tsallis 的 q- 熵理论及其非广延统计力学 很多人知道巴西物理学家 Tsallis 于 1988 年创立的 q- 熵理论及其非广延统计力学，这个理论的发展者主要来自南美、其它一些第三世界，也有少量欧美科学家参与其中。他的第一篇论文，已经有了 5338 次引用。 对这个理论很反感 甚至嗤之以鼻的物理学家 一直大有人在。 早在2002 年，Lebowitz 就说过，关于Tsallis 的q- 熵理论及其非广延统计力学的“推广运动对科学有害多而有用 少。” ( the promotional movement around it has been more harmful than useful for science.) (转引自europhysics news, 37(2006)9) 2003年， 加州大学的 Nauenberg 就发表过批评文章( critique of q-entropy for thermal statistics,PRE 67(2003)036114 )。不过这些批评声音，并没有引起长程关联以发生相变。 如果划一个 Tsallis 的q- 熵理论流传的相图， 2014 年是发生“相变”的时间边界， 2013 年， PRL 发表了否定文章 , 此后 PRE 同时发表了两篇文章，一致认为这个理论没有物理基础。 1 ，S. Press é, K. Ghosh, J.Lee, and K. A. Dill ，Nonadditive Entropies Yield Probability Distributions with Biases not Warranted by the Data, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 180604(2013) 2 ，S.Press é，Nonadditive entropy maximization is inconsistent with Bayesian updating ，Phys. Rev. E 90 052149 (2014) 3 ，E. P. Bento, G. M. Viswanathan, M. G. E. da Luz, and R. Silva ，Third law of thermodynamics as a key test of generalized entropies ，Phys. Rev. E 91 022105 (2015) Tsallis 长期在美国Santa Fe 研究所兼职，也写了comment ，但是PRL 没有发表。 从1988 年起5000 多篇论文的研究最多能说明一个问题：Tsallis 的q- 熵理论在数学上是可以自洽的，但是和物理关系不大。 四，致谢 2014 年下半年获赠了一些样书，其中经常翻阅的两本是： 1 ，朗道，栗弗席兹，《统计物理学 I 》 ( 第 5 版 ) ， ( 中文版，高教社， 2011) 。这本书的物理眼光极具深度，但是很多概念和我们熟悉的用法不符合，需要一个翻译过程。希望有人系统地写一个教学或者阅读指导书。 2 ， Zemansky ，Dittman ，《Heat andthermodynamics 》 ( 第 8 版 ) ， ( 引进版，机械社， 2015) 。这本书是热力学中的百科全书。 比之于电子书和网页，我更喜欢纸本书。 延展阅读： Motivationfor the use of Tsallis entropy 1，《热•统》批判第一章 2，《热•统》批判第二章 3，《热•统》批判第三章 4，《热•统》批判第四章
标签: 争论
